June 13, 2015

ADDED: If you care about dolphins trapped in fjords, murdered by polar bears, I offer my old advice, originally printed here in 2010:

If you really believed in global warming, you would turn off your air conditioning.

Permanently. Hot? Sit still, drink water, and stop being so selfish... Here are some more things:

1. Your weight should be at the low end of normal, indicating that you are not overconsuming the products of agriculture.

2. You should not engage in vigorous physical exercise, as this will increase your caloric requirements. You may do simple weight-lifting or calisthenics to keep in shape. Check how many calories per hour are burned and choose a form of exercise that burns as few calories as possible.

3. Free time should be spent sitting or lying still without using electricity. Don't run the television or music playing device. Reading, done by sunlight is the best way to pass free time. After dark, why not have a pleasant conversation with friends or family? Word games or board games should replace sports or video games.

4. Get up at sunrise. Don't waste the natural light. Try never to turn on the electric lights in your house or workplace. Put compact fluorescent bulbs in all your light fixtures. The glow is so ugly that it will reduce the temptation to turn them on.

5. Restrict your use of transportation. Do not assume that walking or biking is less productive of carbon emissions than using a highly efficient small car. Do not go anywhere you don't have to go. When there is no food in the house to make dinner, instead of hopping in the car to go to the grocery store or a restaurant, take it as a cue to fast. As noted above, your weight should be at the low end of normal, and opportunities to reach or stay there should be greeted with a happy spirit.

6. If you have free time, such as a vacation from work, spend it in your home town. Read library books, redo old jigsaw puzzles, meditate, tell stories to your children — the list of activities is endless. Just thinking up more items to put on that list is an activity that could be on the list. Really embrace this new way of life. A deep satisfaction and mental peace can be achieved knowing that you are saving the earth.

Scientists out of Norway have recently announced that they are finding polar bears eating dolphins in the Arctic for the very first time. Indeed, this is a new finding and scientists blame global warming as the reason the bears have had to expand their diet.

If anything, shouldn't that be called the reason bears have had the luxury of expanding their diet? The article does not support any loss of other food source requiring the substitution. The bears simply have a broader menu to choose from.

For that matter, what is wrong with dolphins expanding their territory?

I guess I can't get too worked up about this. The reality is that this is almost assuredly not the first time that polar bears have killed and eaten dolphins. Just the first time maybe that this was seen by a "scientist". Bears are opportunistic omnivores, and the bigger they get, the more they tent toward the carnivore side, without losing the opportunistic side. Polar bears will eat any meat that they can catch and kill where the resulting calories exceed the number expended in the endeavor which means that seals, dolphins, and humans are in this sweat spot in their diets.

It is kinda cute how they blame pretty much anything they can on global warming, and the rest on global climate change. But since it isn't falsifiable, it is closer to a religion than to science. Or, if not a religion, at least a cargo cult.

According to the scientific journal Polar Research, vol. 34, 1 June 2015, the dolphins were trapped in ice. While that article does include the line "[t]he warming of the Arctic is significantly changing the ecosystem and relations between species," the plain fact of the matter is that the dolphins were believed by the scientists themselves to have been trapped by ice.

Wouldn't it be nice if the world could go back to how it used to be - absolutely unchanging. For 4 billion years the world was exactly the same. The same continents, the same species, the same atmosphere, the same diets. Then, in the last 100 years, man had to come along and fuck it up. Isn't that sad?

And one more thing. Remember the bit about chimpanzees hunting and eating monkeys. It had never been seen before, until it was. Until then chimps were thought to be gentle vegetarians. I'm just wondering how man/global warming forced chimps to start eating monkeys. The explanation has to be there somewhere.

If crows realize they should keep their distance from someone with a rifle/shotgun, the dolphins should figure this out pretty quickly. Or maybe these are just the stupid dolphins that are getting trapped, and the polar bears are doing the species a favor.

Of course it was global warming. Dolphins are way too intelligent to get lost and there are some many scientist watching holes in the ice (been doing it since the beginning of mankind) the most unique event of polar bears hunting a certain type of dolphins in an ice hole was finally observed by a scientist.

What I can't determine is how the ice could even form. Didn't the scientists predict all the ice would be melted by now? Maybe Al Gore spilled a few cubes from one of his yachts purchased with the money made from warning the world about global warming.

I would like to see some more specifics about this.There should not be any polar bears on the Norwegian mainland, nor any icepacked fjords unless perhaps on the east side of Nordkapp, so it might be Svalbard (Spitzbergen) they are talking about.In any case, always be suspicious of any report by "scientists" without referenced credentials and belonging to something that sounds like a private activist organization.

Michael K --- Ice levels in the Arctic are near record lows (in case you "care about being truthful"). The Antarctic is a different story, but overall ice levels are way down globally over the past 30 years. But go ahead and twist the facts when they conflict with your political views.

Please someone define the test for falsifying this scam theory? Because without a falsifying test there is only a huge scam propagated by politicians intent on transferring wealth. The scientist are just along sucking up the cash. Remove govt spending on global warming research and the issue dies. Because no body is spending their own wealth on a scam. Only other peoples money will do.

"For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much — the wheel, New York, wars and so on — whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man — for precisely the same reasons." — Douglas Adams (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, #1))

I myself think that seals are much cuter than dolphins. Dolphins look way too fish like for me. If you're a mammal, you should look like a mammal. This kind of trans-species cross over is creepy and wrong. If one seal lives one day longer because of this new item on the polar bear's menu, then the world is a better place.

steve uhr said...Michael K --- Ice levels in the Arctic are near record lows (in case you "care about being truthful").

The record from how far back? 100 years??? Whoop, whoop. Get back to me when you have facts relevant to the discussion.

Stuff like this article are prime to perpetuate the scam. Remote areas of the planet that were not open for extensive study and data collection, until very recently. Hence it is safe to proclaim a new discovery. A discovery of opportunity. Simple.

iowan2,Climate warmers don't need long-term measurements, because they have the right to "transition" the data when the temperature readings think that they should be warmer than what they actually are.

Once again the Republican mental illness of inability to determine the disproportionate impacts of individual versus collective, political action rears its ugly head. This time in a platinum blonde bob.

"Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) depend on sea ice, where they hunt ice-associated seals. However, they are opportunistic predators and scavengers with a long list of known prey species. Here we report from a small fjord in Svalbard, Norwegian High Arctic, a sighting of an adult male polar bear preying on two white-beaked dolphins (Lagenorhynchus albirostris) on 23 April 2014. This is the first record of this species as polar bear prey. White-beaked dolphins are frequent visitors to Svalbard waters in summer, but have not previously been reported this far north in early spring. We suggest they were trapped in the ice after strong northerly winds the days before, and possibly killed when forced to surface for air at a small opening in the ice. The bear had consumed most parts of one dolphin. When observed he was in the process of covering the mostly intact second dolphin with snow. Such caching behaviour is generally considered untypical of polar bears. During the following ice-free summer and autumn, at least seven different white-beaked dolphin carcasses were observed in or near the same area. We suggest, based on the area and the degree to which these dolphins had decayed, that they were likely from the same pod and also suffered death due to entrapment in the ice in April. At least six different polar bears were seen scavenging on the carcasses."

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

Don't forget to lump all those mean, partisan lab scientists in with Chomsky (whose contribution to linguistics is actually quite significant) and Asimov, rc - even though their accomplishments dwarf yours by several orders of magnitude. Remember, your ignorance is as good as their knowledge. Maybe better, even.

Now there's a question as to whether polar bears are simply returning to an old time comfort food when they snack on dolphins. No doubt during the Medieval Warming Period (roughly 900 AD to 1300 AD) dolphins swam as far north as Norway.

But if it was that warm in Norway, were polar bears there, or did they retreat to the very North Pole itself? Inquiring minds want to know.

And while we are about it, until recently the Japanese tended to catch and eat dolphins. They liked them with a side of rice and soy sauce. If a Japanese can eat a dolphin, why shouldn't a polar bear be allowed to partake?

Before anyone gets their tidy whities all in an uproar about any carnivore (or omnivore in the case of most bears) killing and eating any other animal, you have to realize that is just what carnivores do. Including the lion in the South African tourist park who recently pulled a female Australian from her car and proceeded to chomp on her. Unlike the dolphin, who probably would have been smart enough to keep the car windows up and closed, the female Australian was a bit dumber. But a carnivore has got to do what a carnivore has got to do. And maybe turnabout is fair play. The dolphin who became a polar bear's lunch had eaten a bunch of herring earlier in the day.

Rhythm and Balls said...Don't forget to lump all those mean, partisan lab scientists in with Chomsky (whose contribution to linguistics is actually quite significant) and Asimov, rc - even though their accomplishments dwarf yours by several orders of magnitude. Remember, your ignorance is as good as their knowledge. Maybe better, even.

Seems like bullshit to me. Why can't the dolphins swim under the ice and escape?

In any event, this article makes me think of Coca-Cola. As does any article about polar bears and that is exactly what Coca-Cola wants.

Coke has been using polar bears in their advertising for almost 100 years now. Back in the 90's they began giving tens of millions annually to the World Wildlife Fund and, just by pure coincidence I am sure, WWF starting touting polar bear dieoff due to global warming.

I have never understood how a bear population that increased from @5,000 bears in the 1970s to 20,000 or so by 2,000 was dying off.

Someone else mentioned Sierrra Club. They are another co-opted organization. A couple years back it was revealed that they got about 25% of their total annual budget from Chesapeake Energy, a major gas producer.

Pure coincidence, I am sure, that Sierra Club has been in the forefront of getting coal plants shut down or converted to gas. Move along, no corruption to see here. Oh, no. Not at all.

Polar bears got to eat something. Why is it "murder" when they eat a dolphin? Is it murder too when they eat a seal? Besides, remember all those second-graders with the tear-streaked faces sobbing out their little hearts because their teacher said the polar bears were starving. Well, the polar bears aren't starving anymore. That' good news, right?

I passed a solar physics class, a quantum mechanics class, a complex numbers class, an immunology class, a biophysics class, a physical chemistry class, an analytical chemistry class, an organic chemistry class, a molecular biology class, an evolutionary biology class, a solid state physics class and a bunch of others in the physical and biological sciences. And I think climate science as currently constituted is an embarrassment to all of them. You don't have to be anti-intellectual to recognize crap when you see it.

I call bullshit. To notice masses of year-round, continental ice suddenly irreversibly melting, plants around the world blooming earlier and earlier each year and the changing composition of the atmosphere needed to regulate and retain planet's heat, doesn't require any complex understanding at all. It just requires a brain that can do more than regurgitate and punch the numbers that were fed into it. Denying the role of a planet's atmosphere, including its composition, in regulating its climate is denialism plain and simple. You might as well say there's no difference made by changing the ABV of various beers. Only a dumbass would pretend that changing the content of a crucial component of a system by 50% has no effect.

Yes, that would be interesting if it were true. So are you now talking about continental ice instead of sea ice? And very little on earth happens suddenly. Look at the cycles of ice melt and refreezing. We're talking variations and deviations, not wholesale melting. Look at the charts. It's a sine wave. Some years go lower than others but it always largely recovers in the winter. So this sudden straight line melting you're talking about doesn't happen.

And don't even get me started on "irreversibly". The only possible way you could know that is if you've been to the future in your time machine. If you're not doing anything this weekend, can I borrow it?

"For plants around the world blooming earlier and earlier each year"

So is this another example of irreversibility? Nature varies. It always has (assuming your premise is even correct that all plants all over the world are blooming earlier every year without exception). Do some research and let me know if they same phenomenon occurred during the Medieval Warm Period. Did the ice melt irreversibly then, too?

"and the changing composition of the atmosphere needed to regulate and retain planet's heat, doesn't require any complex understanding at all."

This is the second half of the sentence begun in the previous quote, but forms a full sentence that is so disjointed I honestly don't know the exact point you were trying to make.

"Denying the role of a planet's atmosphere, including its composition, in regulating its climate is denialism plain and simple."

Well, actually, that's a straw man, plain and simple. You'll never find anyone outside Bellevue making that claim, so defeating it is basically a pyrrhic victory. Everybody alive on earth knows that without an atmosphere there would be no climate to regulate. c.f. the Moon.

"Only a dumbass would pretend that changing the content of a crucial component of a system by 50% has no effect."

Do you see how you are putting the cart before the horse? You are declaring something a crucial component, a priori, and then assuming the worst if it changes. Is that science? What if you changed the content of the "crucial component" by 50% and it had a minimal effect? Would you then decide it's not a crucial component? Or would you chuck that data because it's inconvenient to your argument. So far that crucial component has been raised about 40% and the effect is arguable at best. Nothing about the current climate is outside of historical experience. You see, it might turn out that other components of the system are significantly more crucial and overwhelm whatever effect changing the concentration of CO2 might have. The failure of the climate model predictions to this point suggests that is true. Notice I say "suggests". The evidence is not yet in for either side. That's why declaring something to be true and then working backwards to rationalize it is a bad idea in science. Not waiting for the evidence to be conclusive is whatever the opposite of denialism is. I guess you would might call it cheerleading.

"Only a dumbass would pretend that changing the content of a crucial component of a system by 50% has no effect."

First, let's stipulate that "no effect" is meaningless. An infinitesimal effect is not "no effect", but it's also not important in a practical, everyday sense. If the 50% change causes a temp increase of 0.00001 degrees that's not no effect but no one will ever notice.

And, also, how do you know 50% is significant? Because it sounds like a big number?

Again, assuming something is true is not the same thing as science. Science demonstrates things, it doesn't assume them. Even if CO2 is important, it might take a doubling or a tripling, or a factor of 10 increase, to make a significant difference. pH works like that. Other things in science work like that. That's what evidence and proof are all about. To me, 50% doesn't strike me as a huge number. I'm used to dealing with multiple factors of 10. But again, that's just a feeling. See the difference?

The government funded researchers control the field by funding only those researchers that use the same flawed methods; they stifle progress by rejecting contradictory evidence, and immediately impugn the integrity and competence of researcher who disagree. Therefore these government funded researchers are the only beneficiaries of the status quo.

Name the topic. Sounds like climate science, doesn't it? It's not. Again, name the topic.

Oh, this is part of an answer from an interview of someone who just published a peer-reviewed article about this topic. He's not spouting off for the hell of it. He's talking about his published findings. But he is saying what I was saying above. When you see crap, it's crap, no matter how many people might defend it.

And one more thing, speaking of numbers and relative magnitudes. Your ABV analogy only works up to a point, which I don't know if you even considered. The ABV number can never go above 100%, by definition. So 50% is a significant percentage of that. But CO2 ppm increase is not limited to 100%, or even 200%. Or even 400%. It has room to increase by a factor of 2500 to reach a full C02 only atmosphere. In other words, it could increase by 250,000%. So how important is 50% compared to that? Assumptions will never tell you. Only real world science will.

Wasting time with Clintonian levels of parsimony is stupid. Venus has a hotter temperature than Mercury and kcom wants people to believe (assume, really) that carbon doesn't regulate a planet's temperature. That's about as stupid as it gets. Ignore all the evidence, assume the null hypothesis HAS TO BE true. Wait for a perfect experiment to be run on the planet whose atmospheric composition we're changing, with perfect results, that will be agreed to by everybody - not just 97% of scientists, but - and this is crucial - also by some of the least informed partisans of one of the worst educated industrial societies and, most importantly, their financial sponsors in the industries that depend for their monetary livelihood on continuing to run that experiment in perpetuity. Indefinitely. Then we will know that we have arrived at what we're all waiting for: Scientific perfection as revealed by what politicians and their backers know to be absolute empirical TRUTH. No longer will science ever be a provisional (if the most powerful) form of knowledge! It will be religion! No finding will ever be questioned, challenged or revised ever again! Any form of uncertainty will be FOREVER removed from the system. We will then replace the natural uncertainty of science with the doubtless faith of a religion! Thanks, climate deniers! I never realized the actual scope of your project, here.

That's what evidence and proof are all about. To me, 50% doesn't strike me as a huge number. I'm used to dealing with multiple factors of 10. But again, that's just a feeling. See the difference?

Oh yeah. I see the difference. You're someone who actually believes that your "feeling" and how things "strike you" is scientific - simply because your work with things on a logarithmic/geometric scale inform you (but no one else) that non-logarithmic relationships must be IMPOSSIBLE!

Very objective. Very scientific.

Do you see how you are putting the cart before the horse? You are declaring something a crucial component, a priori, and then assuming the worst if it changes. Is that science?

The relationship between Venus' atmosphere and its temperature is only non-evidence to all the Venusian terraformers who see fit to make the place habitable - so I guess you've got your work cut out for you. Let me know how that project goes.

And one more thing, speaking of numbers and relative magnitudes. Your ABV analogy only works up to a point, which I don't know if you even considered. The ABV number can never go above 100%, by definition. So 50% is a significant percentage of that. But CO2 ppm increase is not limited to 100%, or even 200%. Or even 400%. It has room to increase by a factor of 2500 to reach a full C02 only atmosphere. In other words, it could increase by 250,000%. So how important is 50% compared to that? Assumptions will never tell you. Only real world science will.

Behold, the mind of the denialist "at work". Apparently no one in the real world has ever determined that the impacts of ingesting equal amounts of a 5% ABV beverage versus a 7.5% ABV beverage could be tested or known. Or that the lesson of what you do to a natural system like that is bunk, because the differences should have only been noticeable with a logarithmic difference, not a 50% difference. Or something like that. Maybe because the blood has a phosphate buffering system for acidemia, that will also buffer the effects of alcohol ingestion, turning it from what should be an arithmetic dose-response to a geometric dose-response.

This is amazing. But then, he even disputes that we've been able to accurately measure atmospheric CO2 content over the years at all. Perhaps their instruments were not as sophisticated as those accessed by brewers, or something.

Congratulations on your inability to comprehend a basic point. As I said and will repeat, your feeling that 50% is significant is just that - a feeling. The exact thing you're criticizing me for by misreading what I wrote is what you're guilty of. I said that it didn't seem like such a big number to me based on stuff I work with, but that's just a feeling. Notice the contrast with what you said, paraphrasing, "if you change something by 50% it must have an important effect". There's no science there. It's just straight up assertion and nothing more.

Yes, if you want to demonstrate you are divorced from true understanding, go ahead and use that number. Or go study its history and get back to me. Most of those deniers you're so concerned about would fall within that 97%. Because it doesn't mean anywhere near what you probably think it means.

Also, you haven't even formulated it right. The misleading 97% doesn't apply to scientists in general. You do understand that right? They weren't part of the poorly done survey that came up with that number.

"Behold, the mind of the denialist "at work". Apparently no one in the real world has ever determined that the impacts of ingesting equal amounts of a 5% ABV beverage versus a 7.5% ABV beverage could be tested or known. Or that the lesson of what you do to a natural system like that is bunk, because the differences should have only been noticeable with a logarithmic difference, not a 50% difference. Or something like that. Maybe because the blood has a phosphate buffering system for acidemia, that will also buffer the effects of alcohol ingestion, turning it from what should be an arithmetic dose-response to a geometric dose-response."

It would help if you would actually respond to the argument made, instead of one you made up yourself. You do realize the earth is buffered as well, right, in all sorts of ways. That's why we need actual science and empirical data to determine what effect CO2 will have. Your insistence we can assume the effect is naïve. We don't live in a glass test tube under carefully controlled conditions.

"Venus has a hotter temperature than Mercury and kcom wants people to believe (assume, really) that carbon doesn't regulate a planet's temperature."

No, what I want them to do is not assume a 50% change in anything must have a certain effect. That effect needs to be proven. And I also don't want them to be so naïve and simplistic to assume one factor alone regulates something as complex as a planet's temperature. If you can prove that, fine. And keep in mind, proving that on Venus does not prove it on Earth. I don't want people to assume that an atmosphere with 0.04% CO2 has behavior identical to a planet with 96% CO2. You know all that buffering I mentioned. It doesn't exist on Venus. So, while Venus makes an interesting case study, it alone can't explain Earth because it's not Earth. If your predictions don't predict reality, which so far the climate models don't, your proof that "carbon" (as opposed to CO2) regulates a planet's temperature single-handedly is suspect. Which we already knew of course based on past geologic history. Lots of things regulate the atmosphere, including currents, solar radiation, etc.

There was no "feeling". Your whole rejectionist denialism rests on telling everyone to assume that the null hypothesis must be TRUTH and that uncertainty over how much of a change will be a significant one (as if all the ice melted so far is insignificant) means that we should not bother to do anything, rather than to do the sensible thing and avoid the realization of an unstable scenario that has never been precedented at any point during the course of human civilization.

I never asserted anything about what we should or shouldn't do beyond the entirely defensible claim that we shouldn't assume effects, we should prove them. That's just more name calling on your part. I don't know why you think that's an argument. But I know you can't help it. That's the sad part. You're not trying to understand, you're just parroting what you've heard and feel smug because of it. You'd be a bigger man (or woman) if you moved away from that, though.

And I also don't want them to be so naïve and simplistic to assume one factor alone regulates something as complex as a planet's temperature.

Ok, here's a basic fallacy that makes you impossible to converse/debate with. You confuse multi-causality with no causality. Just because more than one thing (variable X) affects outcome Y, does not mean that changing variable X will prevent a change in outcome Y. You just made about the most thoughtless error I can think of. My car requires gasoline and air and heat to create the spark that starts the engine running (and a whole lot of other things). What you said is as ridiculous as saying that removing the gasoline doesn't prevent the air and heat from running the engine on their own. Sorry if you see that as "name calling", but it really is an astoundingly ridiculous point to make.

No, what I want them to do is not assume a 50% change in anything must have a certain effect. That effect needs to be proven.

According to what standard? Name your experimental model. Or just admit that you're having a blast subjecting this variable to the earth itself, using our planet as that model, and denying away the conclusions most educated people are making from the effects they're seeing so far. The person who denies the evidence that others accept (that would be YOU), has the burden of proof of naming the standard that he would accept. But you don't want to do that, because your mind has this strange need to imply that no amount of evidence would be good enough, and telling everyone else that they need to accept the infinitely, eternally never-met standard also. Vaccine deniers operate much the same way.

It would help if you would actually respond to the argument made, instead of one you made up yourself. You do realize the earth is buffered as well, right, in all sorts of ways.

This is a vague way of saying (and you seem to prefer vagaries; your viewpoint depends on them) that unmentioned and perhaps even undiscovered mechanisms of negative feedback MUST OVERWHELM all the positive feedback that we know to exist.

I never asserted anything about what we should or shouldn't do beyond the entirely defensible claim that we shouldn't assume effects, we should prove them. That's just more name calling on your part. I don't know why you think that's an argument. But I know you can't help it. That's the sad part. You're not trying to understand, you're just parroting what you've heard and feel smug because of it. You'd be a bigger man (or woman) if you moved away from that, though.

There's nothing to understand; because your viewpoint seeks no illumination of any sort. It just seeks to obscure. And that's not name-calling, you overly sensitive gentle, sweet soul (more name calling?). It's being allowed to criticize ANY idea whatsoever. You seem to have no idea of what an ad hominem attack even is. I suspect this sniveling you're going on about it is just another way to avoid addressing the actual points.

Hey, guess what. You say gasoline is a critical component of running a car. It can't start without it. Well, I just started my car. Then I put 50% more gas in it and it started again. I thought something different should happen since I changed a critical component by 50%.

My car requires gasoline and air and heat to create the spark that starts the engine running

Well, actually it requires electricity to create the spark. That ignites the gas which creates the heat and pressure.

And I'll repeat my initial criticism. Until you prove the 50% is significant, it's just your feeling.

Oh, no. A criticism. I guess my feelings are so hurt right now. Or, I guess that's how you would respond.

Respond to the actual points made instead of dredging up the past. The conversation has moved past the point that you're stuck on. Or perhaps that's what bothers you.

If you CAN'T STAND NOT TO have that ridiculous point addressed, though - you're right that it's rational speculation. Just like I would rationally suspect that a train moving at me at 100 mph will probably hit me unless I move. I mean, I can't prove that it will, because I can't predict the future. Anything could happen. But it's irrational to suppose that it wouldn't.

As far as your obsessive lock on "feelings" goes, you're, again, missing the point. It's not the 50% number that matters so much as CO2 being crucial in regulating temperature. You seem to disagree, based really only on the far-fetched claim that the Venusian model has too much CO2, which must mean that CO2 either plays no role or too small a role at the levels contained on earth. Even though no credible theory accepts that. You're taking issue with the description of "crucial", so bitching about the number is rather moot.

Hey, guess what. You say gasoline is a critical component of running a car. It can't start without it. Well, I just started my car. Then I put 50% more gas in it and it started again. I thought something different should happen since I changed a critical component by 50%.

Yup. It's now 50% more likely to start. But if you're having trouble understanding the difference between addition and subtraction then I can't help you with that.

I disagree. It seems to be the most accurate way to describe someone who not only rejects that current science is too incomplete for him to accept, but that no evidentiary standard would ever be complete enough for him to accept. And nope, calling something "PROOF" doesn't bestow upon it magical abilities. You have to say what evidence is good enough for you. Even Dawkins could quote Haldane in naming an evidentiary standard that could disprove evolution, theoretically. You can't even do that, though. So your point is clearly ideological. (And probably emotional). But obviously totally unobjective.

If you want to take that back I won't object. It's the silliest thing said so far in this thread and I'd be surprised if you really meant it.

It was a rhetorical point aimed squarely at your just as nonsensical rhetoric. If you have a low amount of gas in a tank that will obviously make it harder to start. Just because you arbitrarily changed the variables doesn't change that fact.

Now you're really going downhill. Go out to your car on cold winter morning. You've got no heat. But you do have electricity courtesy of your battery. That's what provides the power to the spark plugs.

When a CO2 dominated model does a good job of predicting the future temperature that would be a good start on proof. So far, you're not off to a good start. You still have time, though. But it won't happen today.

But you like bad evidence. Makes things more vague, less amenable to rational action and/or prediction. It helps your cause of obscuring, rather than illuminating. Someone must really hate knowledge to say that no amount of it is good enough to do anything with it, nor will it ever be.

The models and the real temperature are diverging and have been for years. You know that and I know that. Maybe they'll move back up and make you happy later but right now the predictions aren't looking so good.

I suppose you also believe that electric sparks and batteries are the cause of the consistently greater and greater amounts of melted arctic sea ice.

Or maybe a God who promised that he wouldn't do anything that drastic after The Great Flood. A similarly vague and improbable explanation. And one that just might align with your political sympathies and the financial interests of those backing them.

Yes, arctic sea ice is lower than in past years. Therefore, a 50% increase in CO2 must be the cause. The one does not follow from the other in any straightforward way. That's the part you have to prove.

Which includes explaining if and how the current situation is fundamentally different from the Medieval Warm Period that also saw warmer temperatures, retreating glaciers, etc.

Oh, I see. You think the top of this chart is a long-term, sustainable trend. I mean, it's less than ten percent of the length of the X-axis, but maybe it will stay forever and we can keep increasing CO2 indefinitely. Or at least until it's at 4% concentration and you pass out. One can hope, right?

I have no association with Exxon-Mobil or any other oil company. Well, I did know a guy once who graduated with me (we took most of those classes I mentioned above together) and he went off to work for an oil company in Louisiana. But I haven't talked to him since graduation many years ago.

And I have no association with any evangelical faith, or any faith to be honest. I do have relatives that are, but I'm sure you do, too.

Yes, arctic sea ice is lower than in past years. Therefore, a 50% increase in CO2 must be the cause. The one does not follow from the other in any straightforward way. That's the part you have to prove.

Which includes explaining if and how the current situation is fundamentally different from the Medieval Warm Period that also saw warmer temperatures, retreating glaciers, etc.

Oh I know. The possibilities are endless. Sunspots, even - right? Is that the currently vogue attribution? Whatever it takes to keep CO2 rise on target to at least get to above 3%. That way, Exxon can distribute gas masks to its devotees (like you) and make sure you have a nice little, gas mask-enhanced future. It would be great. Very sustainable.

By then, your cognition would probably be so weak that you'll be taking the other "variables" just as seriously, also. And remember all the ones we don't know about. As your guy Rumsfeld called them, "unknown unknowns". The best reason ever to pretend that we should do things that don't make sense.

Of course, we can't disprove these things to a degree of certainty that matches the one called for by Qual-Com, so that's a good reason to assume that they're at work and getting in the way of the predominant paradigm. Definitely. It's definitely always best to act on the vagaries of what we don't know - especially when a habitable planet's at stake. That's the "new" conservative way. Call it "de-conservation", maybe.

I have no association with Exxon-Mobil or any other oil company. Well, I did know a guy once who graduated with me (we took most of those classes I mentioned above together) and he went off to work for an oil company in Louisiana. But I haven't talked to him since graduation many years ago.

And I have no association with any evangelical faith, or any faith to be honest. I do have relatives that are, but I'm sure you do, too.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Whatever your politics, or lack of interest in them, I'm sure they don't include a grounding in the importance of reason in improving and sustaining anything decent in the way of the human condition.

If you read carefully, or even not so carefully, you'll see I said temperatures might yet go up again. I'm not assuming anything about the future. You're the one who seems to be claiming clairvoyance. I'm waiting to see what the actual data does in the future.

I'm still waiting for you to name your evidentiary standard, BTW. Don't think I've forgotten that or the fact that your whole disinformation campaign relies on avoiding it.

It will be great for you to tell everyone that once there's no more arctic sea ice, there won't be any explanations for it. It will be just like, "Damn. I'm really glad we have no idea how the fuck that happened!"

Or point to the sun. The sunspots are also what caused Venus to get hotter than Mercury. Maybe. One never knows. Nor should one ever know. That's the whole point. Evidence can't tell you the speeding train in front of you WON'T hit you. It's certainly not "proof".

If you read carefully, or even not so carefully, you'll see I said temperatures might yet go up again. I'm not assuming anything about the future. You're the one who seems to be claiming clairvoyance. I'm waiting to see what the actual data does in the future.

How about the actual data that shows that you can't maintain consciousness once you surpass 5% concentration, YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE. I'm done with the kid gloves and your anti-name calling "feelings". You claim you took immunology, and then don't even address the fact that a 10*2 concentration disrupts human consciousness, let alone an increase of up to the 97% percent of Venus' atmosphere that you still feel proves NOTHING. You are simply anti-sustainability and obviously take the conditions of the planet currently, the same ones under which civilization came about, for granted.

As a rational person, one who doesn't need every answer to see a general trend - and whether it's worth avoiding or welcoming, I conclude that civilization is something that you have no use for.

So this conversation is done. You're a sociopath. And I can't reason you out of something that you couldn't reason yourself (or anyone else) into.

And with that, regrettably, since I suspect you'll think I'm running away, I have some place I have to be. But I appreciate the conversation. My basic position is assuming and asserting is bad and making sweeping conclusions based on insufficient/paltry data is bad. This is a longstanding gripe I've had and is not specific to climate science. I think it happens far too often in many sciences. Sometimes I speak up when I see examples of it.

And with that, regrettably, since I suspect you'll think I'm running away, I have some place I have to be. But I appreciate the conversation. My basic position is assuming and asserting is bad and making sweeping conclusions based on insufficient/paltry data is bad. This is a longstanding gripe I've had and is not specific to climate science. I think it happens far too often in many sciences. Sometimes I speak up when I see examples of it.

Again, I appreciate the conversation.

Fine. But you cannot use any terms without definitions.

And until you define "sweeping", "insufficient", "paltry", "bad", then you are also, just stating an unscientific opinion.

The atmosphere has 1/100 the concentration of CO2 that you're worried about. It's really irrelevant to the conversation since there's no predicated scenario by any scientist that puts CO2 in that range ever. The entire conversation is about secondary effects in the atmosphere, not about direct effects on human health from breathing it.

Make sure that whatever you're "off" to next involves absolute certainty and no rational heuristics based on multiple streams of data from different sources and scenarios over many, many years. Especially if it's something really important.

You know, one time there was this guy I knew, who liked to drink coffee.

A great an awesome idea occurred to me. I figured if I could add a little bit of arsenic to his coffee, maybe no one would notice.

So, I took a little bit, and sprinkled it in there. It was way below the lethal dose, which I don't know BTW. And don't care to know. I'm not even sure if I could look something like that up.

But so I added the arsenic in, anyway. It was great fun. I don't know why, but fun things are like that.

Every day, I add in a little bit more and more. Just for the hell of it. And also to support the arsenic industry. I'm not sure where I'm going with this, and what the endpoint is or should be. Just that it's a great way to disprove all those people who say arsenic is dangerous to ingest.

They really don't know how unscientific they are. Making the sweeping generalizations that they do.

Someday I hope to perform the same sort of experiment on the planet. Others may take issue with jeopardizing the planetary conditions under which civilization was born and has flourished. But obviously they are also just being emotional, and unscientific.

Is there a scientific reason for life, anyway? Maybe we should end it and see what comes next. Of course, you can't be sure of what will happen until you try it out.

You know, one time I was on the SpaceLab, and thought, wouldn't it be a fun thing to fuck with the life-support systems?

Others protested, wondering what the fuck was wrong with me. But they have problems understanding that true science relies on absolutely certainty - rather than the fact that all empirical knowledge is provisional.

So, off I went! I dialed up the heat to intolerable temperatures, the humidity down to 0, and the oxygen levels to as low as they go? Who the fuck were they to get in the way of my scientific experiment!

I felt so powerful and righteous doing this! It reminded me of the Nazi doctor Joseph Mengele! So much wisdom he attained for medical knowledge. Who was everyone else to complain about the ethics of subjecting their survival to experiments!? How dare they!

I do this to people whenever I can. Knowledge is important, that way. I burn items in other people's apartments, just to see how much carbon monoxide they'll tolerate. I place obstacles in front of other people's gardens, to test the shade-tolerance of their plants. It's a very useful way of gaining knowledge! What assholes would complain that what they don't know is important to avoid?

It's just so unfair.

You see, I'm doing the world and humanity a great service with these acts. We push the limits of what we know to be absolutely certain under every condition, with every opportunity. Just because absolute certainty is the only goal worth achieving. I mean, how do you know, for certain, that if I push you out a 3rd story window that you're likely to break your back? Or likely to die if I push you out of greater heights?

It doesn't matter that these things have occurred before. The important thing is seeing what will happen when I do them under those specific circumstances, TO YOU! Don't give me this crap about having enough evidence. There is never such thing as enough evidence. Ever. There are always an infinite number of variables that can swing an outcome one way or another. And only by replicating these real-life experiments can we be absolutely sure of what happened - when it was performed in that way, on that person, on that day, and so forth.

Don't you dare give me that emotional, unscientific crap about why it's dangerous and improper to do these things. We simply don't KNOW that to be the case!